TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (4) TMI 160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or manufacture of copper wires. The appellants procured allegedly copper ingot from M/s V.K. Metals Works, Jammu during the period 2004 to 2006.. Copper ingots so purchased from M/s V.K. Metals Works were got converted by the appellants into copper wires through certain job workers. The appellant took cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by M/s V.K. Metal Works. 3. According to Revenue, M/s V.K. Metals Works have not supplied copper ingots to the appellant and cenvat credit has been obtained by the appellant on the basis of fake invoices. Show cause notices raising demand were thus issued by the Department to the appellant, the adjudicating authority placing reliance on the statement of Shri Shankar Lal Gupta said to be an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s against principles of natural justice and this count also original adjudicating order which has been confirmed vide impugned order passed on technical grounds for non deposit of demand and penalty is liable to be set aside. 5. In support of above contention, ld. Advocate for the appellants has relied upon order No. A/11-12/2012-EX (BR) dated 19.12.2011 of Co-ordinate bench of CESTAT in the case of M/s Malhotra Cables Pvt. Limited under identical facts and circumstances in respect of the same supplier M/s V.K. Metals Works. Perusal of such judgement revealed that Tribunal has set aside the denial of cenvat credit to the assessee in that case and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority holding that it is pre-mature to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal Works, there is a need to at least show the result of the first adjudication of the SCN issued to V. K. Metal Works. It might have been desirable to adjudicate this case along with the case against Shri. V .K. Metal Works by furnishing all the evidences against M/s V. K. Metals to this appellant also. This possibility can still be explored. If the SCN is to be adjudicated on the bare evidence relied upon in the SCN, cross-examination of Sh. Shankar Lal Gupta is necessary. So the matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority to proceed as he deems fit in the matter but we make it clear that simply re-confirming the demand based on a statement which is not tested in cross-examination will not be appropriate. 6. It is not d....